Compton v. Arkansas, State of

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: March 4, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00009
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

JIGGS DEAN COMPTON PETITIONER

No. 4:25-cv-00009 JM/PSH

STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION INSTRUCTIONS The following Recommendation has been sent to United

States District Judge James M. Moody, Jr. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so,

those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By

not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

1 DISPOSITION

Petitioner Jiggs Dean Compton (“Compton”) filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on January 6, 2025. The Court subsequently denied the motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, finding Compton has the means to pay the filing fee.

Compton was given up to, and including, February 10, 2025, to pay the filing fee. He was also informed, consistent with Local Rule 5.5, that his failure to pay the fee would result in the

recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice. Compton has not responded to the Court’s January 8 Order.

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that Compton’s petition should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and failure to respond to the Court’s

Order. See Miller v. Benson, 51 F.3d 166, 168 (8th Cir. 1995) (District courts have inherent power to dismiss sua sponte a case

2 for failure to prosecute, and exercise of that power is reviewed for

abuse of discretion). Therefore, the Court recommends that Compton’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice for failure to

comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) and failure to respond to the Court’s Order. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Rule 11 of the

Rules Governing Section 2554 Cases in the United States District Court, the Court must determine whether to issue

a certificate of appealability in the final order. In § 2254 cases, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (1)-(2). The Court finds no issue on which petitioner has made a Substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.

Thus, the Court recommends that the certificate of appealability be denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2025.

3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE